at the very least, that Ecuador at that time was experiencing a climate of instability in important State institutions. Moreover, the judges were blocked from lodging a remedy of amparo to challenge any decisions that Congress might make against them. The Court emphasizes that these factors support the affirmation that a mass, arbitrary dismissal of judges is unacceptable given its negative impact on the institutional dimension of judicial independence.93 86. The Court draws attention to the conclusions of expert witness Medardo Oleas regarding the facts specific to the dismissal of the TSE members: 1.- The removal and arbitrary dismissal from the country’s high courts—the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal—disrupted the institutions of democracy and created a political crisis unprecedented in Ecuador’s history as a republic, and among other things, it left the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court vacant for several months; […] 5.- It broke into the established order and consisted of clearly political interests, and the executive built a coalition with the congressional majority to place compatible personnel and authorities on the Constitutional Court, which was a body for constitutional oversight; the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, that had a dual role to organize elections for the highest State dignitaries, starting with the President and the Vice President, members of Congress and others, to settle challenges and electoral grievances, to review accounts and order sanctions; and the Supreme Court, a body of the Judicial Branch; […] 7.- The terms of office were abruptly ended for members of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, who had already been appointed by the National Congress itself and had been performing the duties designated in the Constitution and laws regulating them. The Supreme Court justices […] were dismissed illegally and unconstitutionally, as they had no set term of office for their positions under the provisions of the Constitution in effect at the time.94 87. The Court emphasizes the text of Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter: ��[e]ssential elements of representative democracy include, inter alia, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, access to and the exercise of power in accordance with the rule of law, […] and the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.” The dismissal of all the members of the TSE brought destabilization of the democratic order present in Ecuador at that time, because it created a rupture in the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government by attacking all three of the country's high courts. The Court adds that the separation of powers is closely related to consolidation of the democratic system and furthermore, seeks to preserve citizen freedoms and human rights. 88. It therefore concludes that, although the National Congress as a body was competent to dismiss the judges from the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, it could do so only in the framework of powers given it under the Constitution and laws. It thus acted outside the bounds of its powers when it adopted Resolution 25-160 by which Mr. Aguinaga Aillón was dismissed. For this reason, and in view of the State’s recognition of responsibility, the Court concludes that the State violated Mr. Aguinaga Aillón’s right for the decision determining his Cf. Case of the Supreme Court of Justice (Quintana Coello et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 174, and Case of the Constitutional Court (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador, para. 211. 93 Cf. Written expert witness statement by Medardo Oleas Rodríguez, delivered by affidavit before a public attestor, pg. 5 (evidence file, folio 2765 and 2765). 94 28